Sifting through the aftermath (cont.)
Posted: Thursday December 13, 2007 9:58PM; Updated: Friday December 14, 2007 4:23PM
So how did Fehr do?
Give him credit for going where Selig feared to tread: "In retrospect, we should have done something sooner," the union director said. Great to hear that kind of honesty
But Fehr couldn't help his snippy side from showing when he whined about not getting the Mitchell Report in advance, going as far as to say that snub alone harmed the clubs-players relationship. "Doing that in and of itself says something about the bargaining relationship," he said.
Save the violins for another time. The union didn't like this investigation from Jump Street, stonewalling Mitchell at every possible turn, and then they expect to get a review copy to suggest edits and changes? Please.
Will Selig suspend players?
Selig said he will decide about penalties on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the evidence and what the penalties were at the time of the infraction. Expect a massive backlog in grievance hearings.
What's the big deal anyway? Why should we care if players shoot up drugs?
End of argument.
For the past five years baseball has been blowing out a rotator cuff patting itself on the back about its drug-testing program. What does the Mitchell Report say about it?
Players have been tipped off about when they are tested. Mitchell recounts the Game of Shadows story of Greg Anderson, Bonds' trainer, bragging in 2003 that he knows Bonds will be tested at the end of May or beginning of June. And when was Bonds tested that year? May 28 and June 4.
Amazingly, union COO Gene Orza told players in September 2004 when they would be tested. (Fehr said Orza "tells me he has no recollection of doing it.'' Orza refused to speak to Mitchell.)
The report said Orza notified players as part of an "emergency" agreement between the union and commissioner's office because the feds had gotten their hands on the positive results from the 2003 survey testing. The union and commissioner's office agreed to a "moratorium" on testing those players until September, when, a player told Mitchell, Orza told them when they would be tested.
The player was not identified. But, independent of and prior to the report recently, a source told me exactly the same story as told to him by a player. That player is no longer active and is mentioned elsewhere in the report.
Tests don't stop players from juicing up. Larry Bigbie said he went on steroids after the 2004 season, for instance, and then switched to HGH closer to spring training. It's a clear sign that the offseason testing program is wholly inefficient.
Back in 1998 -- there's that year again -- Dr. Robert Millman, the medical director for MLB, threatened an outspoken steroid critic, Dr. Lewis Maharan, if he didn't "shut up" about steroids in baseball. That same year, at the winter meetings in Nashville, Millman was part of an MLB presentation that focused on the benefits of testosterone. The Indians team doctor was so disturbed by the upbeat nature of the report that he fired off a memo to GM John Hart with his concerns.
Did any player come out of this looking good?
OK, so now we have evidence from Mitchell that connects about 80 players to performance-enhancing drugs. Sounds like a big haul, no? No. It's a drop in the bucket. More than 100 players tested positive in 2003 alone -- when they knew the test was coming. And Mitchell wasn't interested in how steroid use began in the first place, so what happened before 1998 was largely ignored. The report says Curtis Wetzlaff, for instance, was dealing with 20 to 25 players by himself prior to his steroid distribution conviction way back in 1992. What we got was a tiny snapshot of guys unlucky enough to have hooked up with two guys pinched by the feds and dumb enough to have used their own names and checkbooks. That's it. How many Radomskis are out there? Let's go out on a limb and figure more than one. Hundreds upon hundreds of players have used PEDs. The majority of them just let out a sigh of relief.
We know ballplayers can hit, pitch and field. How good are they at names?
2 of 2